Mailvox: an atheist economist considers TIA part II

In which I reply to the remaining portion of SS’s email from last week:

6) Your point about the way in which atheists construct our systems of morality is well made, and I take your argument about “moral parasitism” without offence. I am yet to be fully convinced, however- though I agree with both you and John Locke that atheists have a very hard time trying to prove that we are “moral”. (Given the awful record of atheists with political power, I think we’ve got a long way to go.) I think that the remarkable similarities that are found in the moral systems of various religions and civilisations demonstrates that it is possible for morality to “evolve”. This is not to say that all moral systems are equally acceptable. Suffice to say that I think I have a lot more reading to do in this area before I can fully agree or disagree with your argument.

7) I found your explanation of various aspects of Christian philosophy to be very enlightening. I was particularly interested to find out that Christians embrace the concept (at least in theory) of “many gods, one God”. It is the same in my country, where Indian Hindus see no contradiction whatsoever between offering alms to one of the millions of Vedic deities, and worshipping a unified Divine Power. The King James Bible is on my reading list and I’ll get around to it eventually; I think it’s past time to find out more about what the Bible actually says, instead of what the New Atheists think it says.

8) In your comments about omniderigence, I found myself wondering if Christian philosophy allows for a flawed Creator? If I understood your book, you do not believe in an omniderigent God. If God exists and is omniderigent, and is therefore capable of both good and evil, would this not obviate the need for Satan in Christian theology? (I think you may have already addressed this in a previous post; I’m just curious about your particular point of view on the subject.)

9) I liked your arguments about the hands-off “designer God” very much. It’s a concept that I’ve been thinking about for some time, and it seems no more or less silly than the “infinite Multiverses” idea. Since we have no idea (yet) about what exactly happened at the moment of the Big Bang, it’s as good a theory as any. I’m not personally convinced by the Designer God argument, but then the alternatives aren’t all that convincing either.

10) I’m curious about your arguments against evolution by natural selection. From what I’ve read of your blog posts, you don’t seem terribly enamoured of Creationism, but you slam TENS regularly. Is there room for any form of evolutionary theory in your view? I’m not trying to defend or oppose Darwinian natural selection; I’d like to know more about the theory’s weaknesses before coming to any conclusions. I just don’t know enough at this point to make a valid argument either way.

11) Your comments about Islam in the book dovetail very well with what I’ve been reading of late. I think atheists make some serious errors of judgement by attacking only Judaism and Christianity; as my own people have found out from very painful past experience, Islam isn’t exactly a friendly religion, and in many ways was less friendly to us than the Anglican British who invaded and conquered my country. If we atheists are going to attack religion, let’s do it consistently- and let’s attack religions on the basis of their merits alone.

12) What news of the Rational Response Squad’s work on refuting your arguments?

In conclusion, I’d like to thank you for providing some very good answers to some very important questions that I’ve been asking of myself for some time. After reading your book, I think I have a much better understanding of Christian theology in particular. I also think I have a lot more reading to do, which I generally regard as a Good Thing. And I will be looking with a great deal more scepticism at the arguments made by the New Atheists in the future. Thank you again for writing a most interesting and useful book; I look forward to reading more of your work in the future.

6) I think “atheist morality” is a misnomer in that there is no such thing as an atheist moral system there is only the opinions of individual atheists about other people’s moral and ethical systems. As for those moral and ethical systems, I think the similarities between the Christian systems and non-Christian systems are grossly exaggerated. For example, despite all of the hysterical reactions to my apparently infamous column on historical attitudes towards rape, not a single person even attempted to argue with the substantive point I made. So, color me dubious about the concept of moral evolution, which is a misleading concept anyhow. What is the moral equivalent of the species, the beneficial mutation, or the allele?

7) I have never understood the common Christian inability to understand that other gods exist, but are not to be worshipped. While I am aware of the tendency of Christians to cry “metaphor” every time a Biblical concept unsettles their assumptions, there is nothing inherently metaphorical about the statement “thou shalt have no other god before Me”; the obvious implication is that there are other gods.

8) Flawed by which standard? God is, by many human standards, flawed. Just ask Christopher Hitchens, who correctly observes that a human engaging in the various activities described in both the Old and New Testaments would be more than a little indictable by many human legal systems. I don’t recall reading of Mary consenting to an ex vitro fertilization procedure, after all. But this does not mean that He is flawed by the relevant standard, which is His. It is almost a tautology to say that God is perfect, in that He is the Creator and therefore the definition of perfection would change according to His will. So, to me the idea of a “flawed Creator” is essentially a contradiction in terms.

9) I would argue that it is markedly less silly. To me, the logic and evidence of God’s design, and designed purpose, is almost inescapable. I am always amused by those, like Richard Dawkins, who genuinely believe that flaws, perceived or real, somehow indicate an absence of design. They quite clearly have never been witness or a participant in a technology design and development process. Above all, keep in mind that you cannot correctly identify a supposed flaw unless you know the designer’s intent. The game designer can easily make a character in the game he designs immortal and impervious to harm. Why doesn’t he? Because it does not serve his purpose.

10) Despite the fervent denials of Young Earth Creationists and Darwinians alike, is plenty of room for evolution and creationism to coexist. Just ask the Pope. The core of my skepticism regarding Darwinian theory is that it is based on a logical concept that has not been sufficiently tested via science, the predictive and explanatory models it produces are either uselessly broad or wildly inaccurate, and the supporting evidence cited for it is reliably false. Time will tell, but I expect genetic science to eventually cast aside the remaining tatters of Darwin’s long-outdated theory. There’s very little left of Darwin’s original theory in the current synthesis, and much of what remains actually predated him. E Conchis Omnia, n’est-ce pas?

11) If secular humanists were one-tenth as rational as they like to think they are, they would be begging Christians to ally with them against a return to pre-Christian paganism. But for the most part they’re not rational, they’re shallow hedonists, anti-Christian reactionaries, scienthological romantics, and larval-stage pagans. Regardless, SS is correct. Every idea and every belief system must stand or fall on its own merits.

12) It would appear Mount Chapter Four has claimed another victim. My understanding is that Kelly is presently hors de combat.

SS is, of course, quite welcome and I appreciate his comments. I’m pleased that he thought well of the book despite his atheism, and I was even more pleased to learn that it has inspired him to delve further into these philosophical and theological matters. The primary conclusion I have reached after two years of intellectual dispute on this subject is that the vast majority of Christians and atheists alike would do well to read more, think more, and opine less. The truth is nothing more or less than what it happens to be, and not a single one of us properly groks the elephant. I’m merely hoping that I’m not the one with his head up the elephant’s rectum.

BNP: the truth comes out

It took a while, but Daniel Hannan’s summary of the BNP’s ideology has finally percolated up to the front pages:

The trouble is that it is a national socialist party. Take a look at its 2005 election manifesto. You won’t find much about reducing the power of the state and increasing that of the individual. It has a curiously dated air of the 1960s and 1970s, with talk of controlling the commanding heights of the economy and building barriers to trade. To be kind to the BNP, one might call it a corporatist party. To put it more roughly, one might say that it is a fascist party, a Left-wing authoritarian party. One thing is certain. As a socialist party, the BNP can only be part of the problem, not part of the solution.

The important point to note is that the problem with the BNP is not that it’s a national party, but that it is a socialist one. That is why it takes votes from Labor, not the Conservatives, much less UKIP. Basically, if someone is talking about “commanding heights” in any non-military sense, there is approximately zero chance he is right-wing.

A rare mistake

By the NFL:

The National Football League has been careful not to suggest that the aim of its current effort to obtain a finding that, for the purposes of selling hats and shirts, the 32 teams are a “single entity” that cannot conspire with each other in dealing only with Reebok and shutting out companies like American Needle. However, the transcript of Wednesday’s oral argument before the Supreme Court suggests that, if push comes to shove, chief NFL outside counsel Gregg Levy (a finalist for the position of Commissioner in 2006) believes that the league is a single entity, for all of its relevant business purposes.

The key moment in the exchange between Levy and the Court comes at page 47 of the transcript, when Justice Sonia Sotomayor poses this question to Levy: “What decision could the sports teams make that would be subject to the antitrust scrutiny under your definition of the permissible range of the joint venture activities? It seems to me that if the venture wanted to make sure all the teams hired secretaries at the same $1,000-a-year salary, that under your theory, that’s okay, because it’s a joint venture.”

In response, Levy didn’t say, “We are taking that position only as to matters relating to the promotion of the league,” which is what he basically said in the NFL’s written brief. Instead, Levy said, “Your Honor, my view is that the — the NFL clubs are not separate sources of independent power. As a result, they are a unit. They are a single entity and it’s –“

At that point, Justice Sotomayor cut him off.

“So to the answer to my question is, there is — you are seeking through this ruling what you haven’t gotten from Congress: An absolute bar to the antitrust claim.”

Perhaps the Wise Latina isn’t quite as dim as I’d expected her to be. And if the NFL is seriously attempting to parlay its antitrust exemption for broadcasting into a broader one covering everything from player salaries to logo gear, it is insane. As an NFL fan, I’m hoping this does not turn out to be yet another example of an extremely successful organization sowing the seeds of its own destruction through foolish greed and overweening arrogance.

If I were an NFL owner, I would pull Levy off the case immediately. And it’s worth noting that when it serves the NFL’s interest to argue the contrary, it claims precisely the opposite:

“The question is whether Minnesota law permits Pat and Kevin Williams to be suspended for a first positive test, and whether Minnesota law allows punishment to be imposed on an employee who uses an over-the-counter substance on his own time. Among the league’s arguments is that the Vikings, not the NFL, employ the players.”

Prediction 3 is looking good

“3. The Federal budget deficit for 2010 will exceed the projected $1.17 trillion.”
– December 28, 2009

It’s nine months too soon to declare victory, of course, but that prediction isn’t looking too bad as of January 13th.

The December figures bring to $388.5 billion the deficit for the first three months of Washington’s 2010 fiscal year. That’s on top of a staggering $1.4 trillion budget shortfall for fiscal 2009, more than three times the size of the deficit that the government ran in 2008.

In other words, the federal deficit is on a pace to hit $1.554 trillion in FY2010. Which is remarkably strange considering that we’re now six months into an economic recovery featuring 3.5 2.8 2.2% GDP growth. Say, doesn’t the GDP formula include government spending….

Animals spirits sink

The Market Ticker notes that consumer confidence is sinking:

There’s no good news embedded in here. Personal finances and the buying climate dropped by amounts matching their largest one-week change ever, possibly spurred by people getting their credit-card statements from Christmas (or simply reflecting on what they spent – and determining it was too much.)

Only nine percent rate the economy positively.

Shockingly, the news of the Federal Reserve printing massive profits for itself and bankers paying themselves huge bonuses hasn’t convinced people fearing for their jobs and cutting back on their expenses that all is well. And the whole “stock market advance as leading indicator” isn’t exactly the most convincing argument on offer in light of the fact that everyone can still remember what all the cheerleaders were saying when the Dow was over 14,000.

UPDATE – Speaking of animal spirits, Beau offers his services: “Against the backdrop of economic Götterdämmerung, I have some cheerful news that might pick up some animal spirits. beau.matchmakingservice -at- yahoo.com is ready to assist ilk wishing to discreetly make their intentions known to other ilk. Some of the more prolific posters certainly need no introductions, but in uncertain times animal spirits could perhaps use a boost. beau.matchmakingservice is available for regulars, irregulars and lurking ilk.”

Breeding Ilk… that’s all the world needs now.

Mailvox: light up, it’s legal

Or it will be soon, anyhow. The media director of Law Enforcement Against Prohibition sends the following email:

As you may know, just moments ago, the California Assembly Public Safety Committee approved a marijuana legalization bill, AB 390, by a vote of 4 – 3.

This is the first time that a state legislative committee has voted to legalize marijuana for non-medical purposes. Judge Jim Gray, who retired last year from the California Superior Court in Orange County and is a speaker for Law Enforcement Against Prohibition, released this statement:

“The mere fact that there was a vote in the Assembly to regulate and control the sale and distribution of marijuana would have been unthinkable even one year ago. And if the bill isn’t fully enacted into law this year, it will be soon. Or, the bill will be irrelevant because the voters will have passed the measure to regulate and tax marijuana that will be on the ballot this November.”

This may be the first intelligent thing California has done in decades. It’s about time; now the rest of the country should legalize it too. Of course, a cynical economist might suggest that the only reason marijuana is being legalized now is that the PTBs are very eager to ensure that the citizenry is as mellow as possible before the next meltdown. Anyhow, I find it more than a little ironic that pot will probably end up being more socially acceptable than tobacco in another decade or three.

I don’t partake of the herb myself, but I am a strong supporter of drug legalization on libertarian grounds. So, this is good news even if it’s probably more driven by California’s desperate need to increase tax revenue and decrease prison spending than anything else.

There is still no global warming

As I have said from the start, the significant point is not that Man is not causing global warming, although that is true, or that there are more important problems to be addressed than global warming, although that is true too. The significant point is that the so-called climate scientists are all incorrect, there is no long-term global warming trend, there is only a short-term and irrelevant warming spike, and all of the predictions of global warming based on the climacaustal’s scientific models will be proven totally incorrect over the next ten years.

The bitter winter afflicting much of the Northern Hemisphere is only the start of a global trend towards cooler weather that is likely to last for 20 or 30 years, say some of the world’s most eminent climate scientists.

Their predictions – based on an analysis of natural cycles in water temperatures in the Pacific and Atlantic oceans – challenge some of the global warming orthodoxy’s most deeply cherished beliefs, such as the claim that the North Pole will be free of ice in
summer by 2013.

According to the US National Snow and Ice Data Centre in Colorado, Arctic summer sea ice has increased by 409,000 square miles, or 26 per cent, since 2007 – and even the most committed global warming activists do not dispute this.

Of course, the mere fact of being completely wrong won’t slow down the global government crowd, their scientific enablers or the scienthological faithful. I just wonder how long it will be before “global cooling is climate change too” becomes the new mantra.

Come on now

Turgot’s Tetrapylectomy! Jonathan somehow manages to make more mistakes while trying to defend the hapless Amazon critic.

Actually, the original reviewer is completely correct. Vox was forgetting that in the multiplier effect, the “new” money becomes deposits at other banks. It is still thus true that at each and every bank, the profits stated by the reviewer are correct.

The original reviewer isn’t correct in any way, shape, or form. The reviewer completely leaves out the multiplier effect, which merely happened to be THE SUBJECT AT HAND, in favor of a trivial focus on the interest revenue – not profit – from a single loan, which he also manages to miscalculate. (He used the wrong interest rate.) It is demonstrably incorrect to say that “the ‘new’ money becomes deposits at other banks”, the most that can possibly be said is that it will USUALLY become deposits at other banks. I assumed for the sake of simplication that the revolving loans and deposits were all taking place at a single bank; this is hardly an unreasonable postulate in light of the fact that Bank of America presently holds 12.2% of total US deposits and 14.8% of total US loans and leases. (Now you know why they can’t be permitted to fail.) That third sentence only applies for each and every LOAN, not for each and every bank. And finally, since it seems everyone is determined to be pedantic about this, I note that the reviewer’s profit calculation could never have been correct since the example in the book was 5%, not the 6% cited in the review.

I’ve made it perfectly clear that I should have created a better example of the multiplier effect in a fractional-reserve system. Mea maxima culpa. I should have referred to “banking system” instead of “bank” and I should have left out the “maximum profit” altogether since it’s not possible to calculate the net profit of the loan multiplier without knowing how many times the loan cycle will occur in the course of a year. But the trivial errors in my poorly constructed example do not justify this absurd level of pedantic and error-filled nitpickery, especially since it doesn’t even begin to call either my point about the fractional-reserve banking system or my conclusions about the systemic risks of such a system into question.